Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/11/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: October 25, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since 2014 Taro Pharmaceutical has colluded with other pharmaceutical companies to keep the price of generic products artificially high; (2) the foregoing conduct violated federal antitrust laws; (3) in turn, Taro Pharmaceutical’s revenues during the Class Period were the result of illegal conduct; and (4) as a result, Taro Pharmaceutical’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 9, 2016, Taro Pharmaceutical revealed that its subsidiary and two senior officers received grand jury subpoenas from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, seeking documents regarding the sale of generic pharmaceutical products. On this news, shares of Taro Pharmaceutical fell $4.94 per share or almost 4% to close at $119.42 per share on September 23, 2016. On October 17, 2016, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against Taro Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies alleging that they engaged in the price-fixing of Clobetasol since 2014 in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws.

On January 23, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2017. A corrected version of this Complaint was filed on June 19.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: Israel

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TARO
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-08318
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 10/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/03/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/09/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-08318
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
DATE FILED: 06/19/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/02/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York)
    10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.779.1414 212.779.1414 ·
No Document Title Filing Date